What would be the point in having an always on screen ? It's a personal device ... do you really want to broadcast your text messages to everyone ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lack of Always-On Screen
- Thread starter p3ntyne
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The point would be if you want to use it as a piece of jewelry for a certain part of the day/time, it would resemble a real watch. In other words showing the clock face even when your arm is down.
Obviously it would drain the battery quicker but it would be nice to at least have the option.
Good point
"HEY, is there something wrong with your watch" ? or "I think you'll need a battery... like yesterday"
Our society will have to get used to watches with NO DISPLAY at all
The thing is - if LG can make an always on display go for TWO whole days one could expect at least one day always on on the Apple Watch.
I mean it doesnt need to be fired up to the full brightness. You can make it always on with less brightness and STILL have the flick detection - then make the Display brighter.
I mean it doesnt need to be fired up to the full brightness. You can make it always on with less brightness and STILL have the flick detection - then make the Display brighter.
Classic watches also don't broadcast all your personal information. They ONLY tell the time. I just can't understand the desire to want it.
What kind of "whole lot more" things?
They all keep a BTLE connection to their parent phone for notifications, and track movement.
Does it also have an always on screen like many others? GPS like the Sony? Maybe a cellular connection like the Gear S or LG LTE?
I can actually think of a couple of minor things, but I'm curious to hear your likely longer list. Thanks!
People often choose a real watch style that might attract others with the same interests. The same can go for digital watchfaces.
Personally, I love it because when I wake up in the middle of the night, I don't have to do any special motions and disturb anyone else. It's also far more subtle to sneak glances at the time / weather / next calendar event during a meeting. (Depending on what kind of face and complications you've set.)
It's especially handy if, say, you wanted to know what time it was while free-climbing a rockface... without having to take your hand off your sliver of a hold and wiggle it around.
Or say, if you're riding your motorcycle and want to check the time. I'm sure you can think of other situations.Of course, if you don't care for the feature, you can turn it off.
Last edited:
I totally agree that it would be nice if you could always see the time. I wear a watch everyday and it's true that if you want to discretely look at your watch it's going to be very difficult the way it works right now. It's not the end of the world but I know I'll be in this situation sooner or later.
Last edited:
Have a "watchface only" setting where it shows the watchface, and vibrates when you get a notification. Lift your wrist and swipe. Not too hard.
I understand that for most people it's going to be an extension of their iPhone, but there are alot of times when you just want it to be an impressive looking watch.
Exactly.
I mean, heck, what's the point of choosing an animated jellyfish or flower, if no one else can see our selection?
But seriously, yes. I read an article the other day where the author pointed out the same thing. It could at least be a choice. There's no reason to limit what we can do.
My Mom would surely put her great-grandkids' pics on hers as the always-on clock background, for example.
Last edited:
It's clear that not having the screen on all the time is a compromise to save on battery life (and even with this approach we only get 1 day). The first digital watches did the exact same thing, only showing the time when you pressed a button:
A watch is something that you glance at throughout the day, so as John Gruber pointed out in his review,, not being able to do that can be pretty inconvenient at times. But I think for someone like me, who hasn't worn a watch in years, it won't be as big of a deal compared to someone who is used to just glancing at their wrist for the time.
I was very surprised when I heard kdarling talk about Android Wear devices lasting a day or two with the screen always on, because from what I had read other (non-Pebble) smartwatches were even worse with battery than the Apple Watch is. Apparently that's no longer true. I for one would really like to have an always-on display of some kind on the watch face, but I can also live without it -- at least for now.
A watch is something that you glance at throughout the day, so as John Gruber pointed out in his review,, not being able to do that can be pretty inconvenient at times. But I think for someone like me, who hasn't worn a watch in years, it won't be as big of a deal compared to someone who is used to just glancing at their wrist for the time.
I was very surprised when I heard kdarling talk about Android Wear devices lasting a day or two with the screen always on, because from what I had read other (non-Pebble) smartwatches were even worse with battery than the Apple Watch is. Apparently that's no longer true. I for one would really like to have an always-on display of some kind on the watch face, but I can also live without it -- at least for now.
How do you know kdarling was not just bs-ing?
He is not exactly Apple Watch fans. Personally, I don't see a point of always-on dimming screen, you are not looking at it and others barely see anything over the dimness. And if that features sacrificed the battery which could be used more productively for other functions, I prefer not.
Yeah, and you STILL had to buy new watch batteries all the time
Well that brings up a question for you, my dear Jabba: is one reason why you stopped wearing a watch, the fact that you always have your phone with you?
If so, then I think you can see that watch glances will need to come back into play...
I'm just saying that to me, having to tap the screen or make a slightly exaggerated gesture to see the time will still be more convenient than taking my phone out of my pocket. Compared to someone who's used to wearing a conventional watch, it might seem less convenient.
I never said that. The Apple Watch's display is much better - I just said it would be nice if there was the option to have it always on.
It will be the same as the last pebble, but with colour this time. And, until a fridge has no door, I think it would be pointless. Similarly, having an always-on watch would be pointless, if you had to open a door to see the screeen.
If you haven't noticed, we are talking about smartwatches. Even if displays like e-ink are different technologies, they are still comparable to smartwatches - your comparison to a traditional watch battery makes no sense.
Considering Apple are known to make extremely battery efficient OS's, how can be it so much worse than other platforms? Apart from having a speaker and Apple Pay (i.e. usable NFC), how is doing a lot more?
If it were implemented, it would only be the clock that occurs after raising your wrist. If you got a notification, the screen way remain the same until you lifted your wrist and read it.
my automatic mechanical watch doesn't even have a battery and will never need one. it tells time and date, it's water proof and i can dive up to 300 meters with it, i can use it as a compass using the position of the sun. but damn it do i wish i could sync with my iphone and do a lot more other stuff.
You keep saying things like "so much worse than other platforms" but then you are comparing it to the pebble... there is nothing to compare there they are in completely different categories besides being both considered "smartwatches"
There really doesn't seem to be much benefit to an always on screen and any time a true display (not low res e-ink garbage) is on all the time it it is going to greatly reduce the battery life. Maybe battery tech will get good enough to allow for an always on display while maintaining adequate battery life, but until then there will need to be concessions made.
There really doesn't seem to be much benefit to an always on screen and any time a true display (not low res e-ink garbage) is on all the time it it is going to greatly reduce the battery life. Maybe battery tech will get good enough to allow for an always on display while maintaining adequate battery life, but until then there will need to be concessions made.
When I said that, I was referring to Android Wear mostly. The watches are very different but still the most similar to the Apple Watch
But again Apple is not "so much worse" as you say than android wear especially since we don't even have any actually battery tests done on the apple watch.
I still think this is a crazy thing to say. Ask people if they want a watch that they have to tap or raise to see the time or a watch with an always-on display. Which do you think they will choose? I understand why Apple chose this design, but it's clearly not ideal.
Apparently Android Wear watches are already providing all-day battery life with the screen on all the time (at least in ambient mode). It seems like this is something that Apple needs to seriously look into.
It's not that crazy. When I currently wear a watch I lift it up and look at it to check the time the same thing I will do with the Apple watch. Sure I guess if there was no battery effect it might save me a split second to not have to wait for the display to turn on, but I really don't see it being a huge issue. I don't need everyone to agree with me though, I am fine with people feeling like they need this I just certainly wouldn't call the current setup "not ideal".
You think that's what you do, until you actually get a smartwatch like that and realise the days of quickly glancing down at your watch and reciving the information everytime you need it, without waiting, are gone. If you have ordered one, you'll see when you get it.
I would love an always on function. Maybe the display could be dimmed to conserve battery and fully brighten when you raise the watch. This would allow you to see the time without having to adjust your arm, but other notifications would be displayed at full brightness.
This would be great for people buying more than one watch. I ordered two and plan to alternate between them, using one for work and one for everything else. So, I'm not so sure that the always-on display would be a big issue for me in terms of battery life.
This would be great for people buying more than one watch. I ordered two and plan to alternate between them, using one for work and one for everything else. So, I'm not so sure that the always-on display would be a big issue for me in terms of battery life.
How do you know kdarling was not just bs-ing?
I've been posting over thirty-five years online under my own name, and try very hard to research what I don't have personal experience with. And I have a LOT of embedded, touch and mobile experience.
In this case, I got curious about conflicting stories I read on the internet, and started buying smartwatches to see for myself which tales of battery life were true or not, and also how well circular displays work.
Like some other people, I do think it's a rather bland first design that took an easy and safe path. But I'm getting one (June delivery, alas) and I certainly wouldn't diss anyone else who does the same.
Yep, if you know you'll want an extra 12 hours without charging, then you'd turn it off, just like going into low power mode on the Apple Watch. If you are okay with the default time length, then it doesn't hurt to leave it on.
The reason many people bring it up, is because they've had experience with watches that light up that way. The delay (and sometimes a need to really wiggle) can be annoying for a few seconds, especially if you were trying to be discrete about checking the time
In real life there are times that someone will want to check the display without even moving their wrist. Or perhaps it's sitting on the night table next to them. In such cases, a not-always-on display is undeniably not ideal.